What do I "want out of this"? I am not up nights worrying about Paul Lynch, I can tell you that much. Specifically here, in this particular exchange, I don't care how you feel about Paul Lynch and his students. What I wouldn't mind is that you seemed to be able to put the pieces together with full awareness and reason. So, like above, where you say his student claims he has transmission, that he has seen the papers (as other students have said). In this case, in a thread on said student's blog that was completely censored when a number of people were asking questions the guy didn't like. But somehow it still seems unclear to you. You still seem to be grappling for a conclusion, thinking it seems unclear or something, despite having it spelled out repeatedly.
Lynch himself elsewhere finally (after avoiding the question but being hounded into a response) admitted that he didn't receive transmission, but has a letter promising such in the future (actually it was his declared friend Adam Tebbe who revealed this - Lynch still says "only my students get the real story"). So, 1) either said student is lying - he hasn't seen the transmission papers, and is making this up; 2) misguided - he thinks 'inka' is transmission; we know Lynch has this (inka being a provisional teaching authority, under supervision, still in training), but has deceptively asserted flat out that this was transmission in the past, and is always implying it (currently calling himself "soen sa" in the line of Seung Sahn, starting his own Zen school, ordaining and transmitting to others, etc, all of which are reserved in his tradition for persons with full transmission); or 3), Lynch forged false papers saying he completed transmission that he showed to this student. None are happy conclusions.
So, my last comment was merely elicited by your otherwise very reasonable comment, that in substance I have no issue with at all. However, in this context, I don't understand how anyone who actually fully comprehends the complete pattern of Paul Lynch's deceptiveness (and the understandable dysfunction of his sangha,) could say anything else but "the writing's on the wall; know at the very least this guy has lied about his cred's". It's not infinitely subjective. He has lied, repeatedly, about his fundamental qualification to teach Zen, start his school, and ordain and authorize others. Beyond that, let people make their own informed choice. But let them be informed, without equivocation. There is no question on this point, no need for further research. By all means, go meet the guy. Just know that he has lied. Period.